Typological Distribution Distinctions across Media in Roman Imperial Portraiture (20 min)

Presenters

Fae Amiro, University of Toronto

Abstract

In the study of portraiture, portrait types are often named after what is believed to be the best representative example of the type in sculpture. Other times a type is referred to as the “Haupttypus” (main type), assuming that the type most common in sculpture was intended to be the subject’s main mode of public representation. These naming conventions are often misleading. Despite the primacy given to the sculpted portraits, there are broad divergences between media that are illuminating about the differing motivations behind their production.

Among studies of the sculpted portraits of Sabina, one type appears on 51 percent of known sculpted replicas, with the next most common type making up only 23 percent. However, in imperial coinage the type only represents 23 percent of known aureus dies and one percent of known dupondius/as dies. Additionally, the type is completely absent from the Roman provincial coins. Similar discrepancies exist when comparing the most plentiful type on imperial coinage, making up about 55 percent of all obverse die portraits, with its minimal presence on the provincial coinage (14 percent) and in sculpture (three percent). The same is true for the most common type in provincial coinage, which represents 82 percent of provincial obverse portraits, but less than a third of portraits on imperial coins or in sculpture.